Preferred Options November 2021

Object

Representation ID: 975

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

Evidence should inform a clear policy on windfall allowance and adjustment in calculations, and during the Plan. Should provide a clear policy on maximum build densities to limit over development.

Object

Representation ID: 976

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

Lack of justification and exceptional circumstances for building on the Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 977

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

South Staffordshire's own housing number at almost 5000 dwellings is too high and should be recalculated. Supply has been underestimated - windfall allowance of 30 dph is far too low, allocated sites typically achieve 25-50% higher numbers than those allocated, should use updated ONS population estimates. Plan is excessively pro growth counter to sustainability, green belt and climate change policies. 4000 contribution to GBHMA needs is too high and should be revisited. 35% uplift for Wolverhampton intended to revitilise urban areas and should not be exported to rural areas. There is sufficient non Green Belt land to meet local need so exceptional circumstances have not been met. Biodiversity net gain will not compensate for this loss. Sites should be released slowly with Green Belt release last

Object

Representation ID: 978

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

Kinver can provide for more than the allocated housing need from windfall and brownfield sites. Proposed allocated sites are of very high environmental and community value. Allocating housing in Kinver is counter to national policy of building in larger, well-serviced centres to reduce carbon emissions. Feasibility of new active travel measures is uncertain. New development likely to increase flooding issues. Unclear on what infrastructure sites will deliver and the impact on existing roads and local traffic/congestion, particularly around Potters Cross and the High Street, will be significant.• The 2 new Green Belt sites contravene NPPF paragraphs 140 and 143. Site 576 has been cookie-cut from the middle of a much larger field, Small site requirement not justification for Green Belt release. No assessment of impact on wildlife and amenity has been undertaken. Site 272 would breach natural boundary of village, does not have a strong boundary and would impact on openness damage visual amenity. Unclear how access to 272 could be made wider. Site 576 - development would breach natural boundary to the village, safeguards the countryside from encroachment and contributes to the setting of the village; concerns around loss of agricultural land and flooding, Site 274 - site continues to contribute to Green Belt purposes and has strong wildlife, community landscape and heritage value.

Object

Representation ID: 979

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

Need a clear policy on windfall allowance and maximum build densities. Should develop climate change initiatives to contribute to economic growth via e.g. retrofit or renewable energy projects.

Object

Representation ID: 980

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

Inadequate evidence is given on transport and infrastructure requirements, and their funding.